ابراهیم رضایی

The degree of social engagement within the early mystical tradition continues to be a subject of scholarly inquiry. A thorough understanding of their societal beliefs and perspectives is crucial for a nuanced and realistic interpretation of their teachings. Central to this understanding is the exploration of the concept of utopia. Utilizing an analytical approach, this research aims to define the ideal state according to Rumi’s Mathnawi and outline the path towards its realization. From Rumi’s perspective, an ideal state is characterized by peace, mercy, harmony, justice, and ultimately, equality. The construction of this utopian society relies on the interdependent roles of individuals, society, and the natural environment. To achieve such a state, Rumi posits a two-stage utopian model: first, the cultivation of ideal individuals, followed by the establishment of an ideal society. In the initial stage, individuals attain peace, mercy, and harmony through their connections with themselves, the Divine, and their familial communities, thus preparing them for the construction of an ideal society. This stage also involves learning through their relationship with nature that the essence of all is one, fostering a sense of unity. Humility, modesty, kindness, and honesty further facilitate dialogue, consultation, and support, laying the foundation for justice and equality. However, various obstacles complicate the journey through each stage, all characterized by a common element of deception. In traversing the second stage, political and economic governance assumes a pivotal role, potentially serving as a foundation for the realization of Rumi’s utopia. 

Although apophatic theology has attracted considerable scholarly attention, studies remain flawed both in terms of research methodology and fragmented analysis, neglecting in-depth examination of prominent philosophers. This study addresses this gap by exploring Ibn Sīnā’s perspective, a pivotal figure in Islamic philosophy. Exploring existential, cognitive, and linguistic dimensions of his writings, the study elucidates his approach to theology. This study argues that his theological framework remains integrative and harmonizes apophatic (negative) and positive methods, rejecting absolute negation while affirming the relative capacity of human cognition to comprehend the divine. He acknowledges both the transcendence of God and the limitations of the human intellect, integrating knowledge and ontology to demonstrate that a complete understanding of God and His attributes necessitates both negative and affirmative approaches. While recognizing the necessity of apophatic approaches due to the omnipotence of God and the constraints of human cognition, he diverges in his explanations of God and existence, rejecting the idea of attributing qualities of the Divine to His beings, attributing qualities to God, and emphasizing the apophatic discourse in the cognition of God and His attributes comprehensively.